modernism, post-modernism
mp4...@albnyvms.bitnet
Actually when I refered to modernism I believe that I made it distinct
from "modernity". modernism (small m) is maintained by certain mechanisms
of thought (in a Minskian sense). I would argue that Post-Modernism
differs not in mechanisms of thougth but in starting data set. That is
the mechanisms are "congruent" with respect to the mind but the starting
assumptions and observables used to direct the logical flow are different.
This does not mean that IMO post-modernism = modernism simply that
the differences between them lie primarlily in the cultural and politc
(sorry no good text editor when I hit return the text is fixed)
political objectives and biases of the participants.
The proof of this is complex but rests in the very agreement in methodology
and style of arguementation of the two philosophies and the need to
attack definitions rather than mechanisms, (that is to say they argue
their points in quite similar ways and tend to come to rather similar
conclusions if held to the same data).
The diffence between self and will is critical to this argument. To
a hegelian the will is the self. That modernism is self based is rather
clear to anyone reading the seminal modern writers or the popular literature
that is derived from them. That pomo is also self based is also fairly
clear when examining the conception of what wrongs are (definitions of
rape,reason, culture etc all derive from a self-centric system- that
is the impact on the self irrespective of the outside systems behavior -
simple example rape is defined as the feeling of violation on the part
of the "victim", and being a victim is defined by the expertiality of
it.) Not all modernists are derived from the enlightenment, but all
place self surity as a primary test of the philisophical system that they
errect. There is modernism in Protestant Fundementalism as much as in
cubism. Not every thing done in the "modern" age is modernist, any more
that everything done in the "enlightenment" was "enlightened". I was
not arguing that the postmodernists were hegelians, but instead that
they were still "self-centric" in definitions (post-structuralism
requires this orientation by its mechanisms, most pomo's are post-
structuralists though not all post-structs are pomo's).
I am interested in those who consider themselves post-modernists
why rap and sienfield &c. are regarded as "brilliant". Being
neither a modernist nor a post modernist, nor even believing in
the end results of either the enlightenment or romanticism I
find them cathartic exercises with appeal to congruently functioning
individuals, well crafted (in some instances) and promising some
insight on the human condition, but founded on assumptions of culture
and humanity which are contrary to how I have observed people behave
in their absence. (eg when they are predictive it is because the
of the similar nature of the people whose behavior was predicted
or because of the influence of the post-mod art form itself).
Stirling Newberry
Andy Perry
wrote:
> in reply to jch...@leland.stanfod.edu
>
> Actually when I refered to modernism I believe that I made it distinct
> from "modernity". modernism (small m) is maintained by certain mechanisms
> of thought (in a Minskian sense). I would argue that Post-Modernism
> differs not in mechanisms of thougth but in starting data set. That is
> the mechanisms are "congruent" with respect to the mind but the starting
> assumptions and observables used to direct the logical flow are different.
> This does not mean that IMO post-modernism = modernism simply that
> the differences between them lie primarlily in the cultural and politc
> (sorry no good text editor when I hit return the text is fixed)
> political objectives and biases of the participants.
>
> The proof of this is complex but rests in the very agreement in methodology
> and style of arguementation of the two philosophies and the need to
> attack definitions rather than mechanisms, (that is to say they argue
> their points in quite similar ways and tend to come to rather similar
> conclusions if held to the same data).
Maybe it would help if you told us what this common methodology is? I
don't see it myself. For one thing, it seems to me that a postmodern
methodology (an oxymoron, but something which seems to exist nonetheless)
would "attack definitions" AS mechanisms. You're going to be hard pressed,
I think, to find a convincing way to separate methodology from political
objectives, anyway.
> The diffence between self and will is critical to this argument. To
> a hegelian the will is the self. That modernism is self based is rather
> clear to anyone reading the seminal modern writers or the popular literature
> that is derived from them. That pomo is also self based is also fairly
> clear when examining the conception of what wrongs are (definitions of
> rape,reason, culture etc all derive from a self-centric system- that
> is the impact on the self irrespective of the outside systems behavior -
> simple example rape is defined as the feeling of violation on the part
> of the "victim", and being a victim is defined by the expertiality of
> it.)
Whatl does this have to do with postmodernism? Who are you thinking of as
"pomo," and what do "wrongs" have to do with their work? Virtually all of
the big name theorists are notoriously hostile to the category of affect,
not to mention being suspicious of experience, so your example of rape
seems to come straight out of left field.
I assume that you know that postmodernism figures itself explicitly as a
critique of the "self," and that you are trying to reveal some kind of
hidden ambiguity--the "secret" of postmodernism. If so, you need to do a
bit more work here. Like maybe referring to a specific argument in a
specific text?
--
Andy Perry Struggling myself don't mean a whole lot;
Brown University I've come to realize
Dept of English That teaching others to stand up and fight
Andrew...@Brown.edu OR Is the only way our struggle survives.
st00...@Brownvm.bitnet -- Sweet Honey in the Rock
Kennan Ferguson
: > The diffence between self and will is critical to this argument. To
: > a hegelian the will is the self. That modernism is self based is rather
: > clear to anyone reading the seminal modern writers or the popular literature
: > that is derived from them. That pomo is also self based is also fairly
: > clear when examining the conception of what wrongs are (definitions of
: > rape,reason, culture etc all derive from a self-centric system- that
: > is the impact on the self irrespective of the outside systems behavior -
: > simple example rape is defined as the feeling of violation on the part
: > of the "victim", and being a victim is defined by the expertiality of
: > it.)
: Whatl does this have to do with postmodernism? Who are you thinking of as
: "pomo," and what do "wrongs" have to do with their work? Virtually all of
: the big name theorists are notoriously hostile to the category of affect,
: not to mention being suspicious of experience, so your example of rape
: seems to come straight out of left field.
I agree with Perry that the original poster is battling demons of imagination
rather than confronting any particular readings. For an textual example of
confronting this question, I recall an excellent article by Sharon Marcus
in the Butler-edited _Feminists Theorize the Political_. Marcus argues
that rape is a culturally enforced "script"--that is, a way of "feminizing
women,"--but not denying that rape is important or horrifying.
In fact, she searches for ways to make it less horrifying.
What she does not do, is suggest that rape is defined as a feeling of
victimization. That is a somewhat bizarre characterization, which sounds
more like a right-wing exaggeration of MacKinnon than anyone "postmodern."